Was prehistoric monument in Golan Heightsbuilt by the giants of the Bible?

a reply to: [post=20022392]Marduk[/pos

And how does any of that bull refute my post?

Can I just say that I stumbled across the stone monument discovered in the Golan Heights today online and was immediately intrigued by how much it resembled ancient monuments here in Ireland ( which seem to date from the same time) for example -

Cnoc Tlachtgha in the Boyne Valley


and The Hill of Tara ( archaeological complex and seat of the High King of Ireland )



Knowth and Newgrange Passage tomb



Newgrange is a prehistoric monument in County Meath, Ireland, located about one kilometre north of the River Boyne. It was built during the Neolithic period around 3000 BC to 2500 BC, making it older than Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids

Winter Solstice

Of the many notable features at Newgrange, the most famous is the small opening or ‘roof box’ situated above the passage entrance. At dawn on the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year (December 21st) and for a number of days before and after, a shaft of sunlight enters the chamber through an opening in the roof box.

link

We also have many ancient dolmen tombs dating from the same time -




Too many to list here but ypou get the Idea, they are dotted all over Ireland.. It's funny how people seemed to be building the same monuments thousands of years ago on different parts of the world, kinda cool

originally posted by: thebabyseagull
a reply to: Byrd


>Why do you think it's giants?

You misrepresent me,I didn't say it was giants.

I presented the theory to ATS along with what supporting textual evidence i could find for you guys to either add to or debunk it.

You asked if prehistoric monuments were built by Biblical giants.

I replied that the structure is several hundred feet across and is composed of rocks that you and I could easily carry and that the burial chamber is not built for a giant.

So my question stands: why would you think it was made by giants?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Marduk

The scientific view of the world is inhumanly limited by
it's own selfish protocols.
"
The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now"

Abraham Lincoln

This quote is indicative of what the president of the U.S. believed
at that time. And being the president I'm sure he had the opportunity
to see first hand evidence. Abe liked to know what he was talking
about.

Let's look at the full quote -- what you have there is a sentence out of context.

The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastadon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested

The source is from some unfinished notes he made for speeches, and you can see a transcript here. The original document in his handwriting is in archives and available to read if you have physical access to the place.

So he was talking about mammoths and mastodons.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The Bible is not a historical narrative,

And yet archeaology has only verified the history in it's record.
Without ever once finding a single artifact that would bring
it's accurracy into question. Ur for example.

Nooooooooo stop, you're doing exactly what they want! Which is to derail any decent discussion about the Bible and ancient history into an arguing match over who believes in God. It's like death and taxes. There is some ATS law that non-believers have to come into a thread like this and try to derail it.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
] There is some ATS law that non-believers have to come into a thread like this and try to derail it.

Yeah, its called being in the wrong forum for a religious debate
If you want that go here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
good gravy....we're covered up in giant skeletons in the U S A.....Texas.....18 foot near Possom Kingdom Lake.....12 footers in the south and 11 footers by the dozen in old news papers....I live right near Rockwall Texas....huge cover-up by the Smithsonian

Rockwall was cast down from a higher dimension.

a reply to: jjkenobi

And how does any of that bull refute my post?

And you don't see me avoiding that here?
I'm responsible for my posts so chill kimosabe'.

a reply to: Byrd

So he was talking about mammoths and mastodons.

I have to disagree, as your conclusion infers repetition and someone
took on the task of burying mammoth bones in the mounds.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: jjkenobi

And how does any of that bull refute my post?

And you don't see me avoiding that here?
I'm responsible for my posts so chill kimosabe'.

Your "bull" response was as dishonest as your previous post which was refuted
You didn't respond to anything in the previous post at all


Let me put this in simple terms for you
The Smithsonian cover up conspiracy was invented by David Hatcher Childress to create a gap of the gods argument so that he could sell more nonsense books to gullible people.

You attempted to refute that by posting quotes from David Hatcher Childress
This is circular reasoning, an obvious logical fallacy. Creationists use it all the time where they claim the bible is infallible

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Byrd

So he was talking about mammoths and mastodons.

I have to disagree, as your conclusion infers repetition and someone
took on the task of burying mammoth bones in the mounds.

You can't disagree, he made it very clear what he was talking about
Well, you can disagree, if you like, we can all do with a laugh

a reply to: Marduk


Oh no please don't laugh at me? Why would he say the same thing
twice Einstien?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Marduk


Oh no please don't laugh at me? Why would he say the same thing
twice Einstien?

He did say it twice. The text is historic, you can go read the original if you like.
Your problem, is, if its not in the bible, you don't believe it and as a result, your level of required evidence is so low you keep tripping over it.

a reply to: Marduk

And you seem to have a problem wih telling people what their problem is and being right.
I don't only believe what the Bible says.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Marduk

And you seem to have a problem wih telling people what their problem is and being right.
I don't only believe what the Bible says.

I have a problem with people who don't know how to research properly and who deliberately perpetuate lies and misinformation. Which is what you've been doing in this thread.
So you do believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God then.
Hoping you realise that the motto of this website is "deny ignorance", I would have thought it obvious that anyone posting anything by David Hatcher Childress was well into that definition. You don't because you already believe in giants because the bible says they existed.
But in your ignorance, you don't seem to realise that the word "giant" barely even appeared in the original Jewish bible and most of the passages where giants are mentioned, in the original, they are just called tall...
So what you're doing, is believing in something that appears in the old testament of just your version of the bible. But in the original version, the only time that the word giant is used is as a description for goliath, who's height is attested as 6 feet 9 inches

Goliath's stature grew at the hand of narrators or scribes: the oldest manuscripts—the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 4th century Septuagint manuscripts—all give his height as "four cubits and a span" (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres)

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: randyvs

Nothing of your repiy refutes my post.

I wasn't refuting your post Randy, I was pointing out how historically and scientifically unreliable the Bible is known to be and how stupid it is to pretend it's a history book (for those that choose to put it forward as one).

There's nothing wrong with having faith in a religious text but it isn't reasonable to pretend you have all the facts are on your side without any evidence to back you up.

Remember Randy, doubt is the first step on the journey to the truth, credulity and faith are the enemy of reason.

a reply to: Marduk


So what you are saying is that conspiracies do not exist, and that finds such as these would not be hidden, destroyed, and ridiculed.

I find it humorous that you think "science" will always find a way to out the truth.

The methodology used alone is much like a prison ward system, surround the answers and even questions with security that is out of this world.

A great many things are constantly deleted from the records, and from public view, and this, well things like this would destroy all religions and scientific scholar "Faithers" as fast as anything.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Marduk


So what you are saying is that conspiracies do not exist, and that finds such as these would not be hidden, destroyed, and ridiculed.

No, I am saying that conspiracies which have lasted for hundreds of years and need the support of archaeologists and historians from different continents, religious beliefs and governments to act together to suppress the truth don't exist.

I've never met an archaeologist for instance who didn't get into it in the first place because they wanted to uncover something. The claim that someone with that mind set is really only into it because they want to hide things is irrational and laughable. At what point during their University education are you suggesting that the men in black came for them and made them into government stools.

The idea that you think things are being hidden to protect religion is ridiculous, have you ever actually met a scientist, they generally don't care much for religion and no, finding a spaceship wouldn't damage the religions of this world. After all, rational thinking hasn't

surround the answers and even questions with security that is out of this world.

Out of your mind to be more accurate


Are you in America ???

a reply to: Byrd

> why would you think it was made by giants.

But that wasn't your orignal question.

You first asked .

>Why do you think it's giants

See the difference.

The answer to your first question is i don't .

The is answer to your second question would be that we have written evidence that giants inhabited the area around the time of its construction,this is the only textual evidence of anyone populating the area at the time
along with local tales its conceivable that someone would think that giants built the monument.

originally posted by: thebabyseagull
a reply to: Byrd
The is answer to your second question would be that we have written evidence that giants inhabited the area around the time of its construction,this is the only textual evidence of anyone populating the area at the time
along with local tales its conceivable that someone would think that giants built the monument.

But we don't have physical evidence of People Of Unusual Size in the area before and after and during the time of its construction.

The occasional 6 foot+ tall person, yes. Not a whole large community of them.

There are no villages and towns where all the houses are of unusual size. There are no graves of people of unusual size. There is only ONE textual comment (not, say, documents from other countries about coming in and conquering or hiring mercenary giants, etc, etc.)

While it's conceivable that over time people might say "oh, yeah. Built by giants." I don't see any evidence that it really was built by a large number of 9 foot tall people.

Would you agree?